Supreme Court Stresses on Evidence Beyond Viscera Reports in Dowry Death Cases
In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld a dowry death conviction, even in the absence of a positive viscera report. This case revolved around the tragic demise of Tuli Shah, who is believed to have committed suicide due to relentless dowry-related harassment.
The bench, consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, was examining an appeal against a Calcutta High Court verdict. The appellants were sentenced to seven years under Section 304-B IPC (Indian Penal Code) for dowry death and an additional three years under Section 498-A IPC for cruelty.
The case was initiated by an FIR from Uma Shankar Shah, who alleged that despite giving cash and gold ornaments during Tuli Shah’s wedding, the dowry demands from her husband’s family persisted. The prosecution contended that Tuli Shah ended her life by ingesting poison on September 16, 2011, due to the continuous torment by the appellants in her matrimonial home.
While both the post-mortem and viscera reports did not conclusively determine Tuli Shah’s death cause or confirm poison’s presence, the Supreme Court underscored the findings of the trial court and the High Court. These findings suggested that her death was consistent with poison consumption. The inquest report noted symptoms typical of poisoning.
The Court observed,
“Thus, the absence of detection of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has not died of poison. As pointed out by this Court in a number of cases, where the deceased dies as a result of poisoning, it is difficult to successfully isolate the poison and recognize it. Lack of positive evidence in this respect would not result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the other circumstances clearly point out the guilt of the accused.”
The Court also referenced the case of Bhupendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that a chemical examination of viscera isn’t mandatory in every dowry death case. The absence of such a report shouldn’t undermine the prosecution’s case. In that case, the court had observed,
“a chemical examination of the viscera is not mandatory in every case of a dowry death; even when a viscera report is sought for, its absence is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution.”
The Medical Officer, who performed the post-mortem, testified about the discovery of a pungent-smelling substance in Tuli Shah’s stomach, often linked to poison. He also admitted that if there is any delay in sending viscera samples for chemical examination, the poison may not be detected. In this case, the viscera was sent for examination five months later.
Drawing from the case of Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar and referencing Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the Court emphasized that in certain situations, traces of poison might not be detectable due to various factors like evaporation or vomiting.
Concluding the judgment, the Supreme Court asserted that the mere absence of poison detection in the viscera report shouldn’t be seen as definitive proof against poisoning. The Court emphasized the importance of promptly sending preserved materials to Forensic Science Laboratories to ensure accurate poison detection.
The case, titled Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal, underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice in dowry death cases, emphasizing the importance of circumstantial and other evidence over specific medical reports.
